Did you know that the United States
government is using drones to kill innocent people in Pakistan? Did you
know that the Pakistani government has asked President Obama to stop it
and he won't? Did you know that Pakistan is a sovereign country that has
nuclear weapons and is an American ally?

Last
week, the Obama administration not only acknowledged the use of the
drones; it also revealed that it has plans to increase the frequency and
ferocity of the attacks. White House counterterrorism adviser John O.
Brennan argued that these attacks are "in full accordance with the law"
and are not likely to be stopped anytime soon.

Brennan
declined to say how many people were killed or just where the killings
took place or who is doing it. But we know that Obama has a morbid
fascination with his plastic killing machines, and we know that these
machines are among the favored tools of the CIA. We also know that if
the president had been using the military to do this, he'd be legally
compelled to reveal it to Congress and eventually to seek permission.

We
know about the need to tell Congress and ask for permission because of
the War Powers Act. This law, enacted in 1973 over President Nixon's
veto, permits the president to use the military for 90 days before
telling Congress and for 180 days before he needs congressional
authorization. Obama must believe that he can bypass this law by using
civilian CIA agents, rather than uniformed military, to do his killing.

The
Constitution limits the presidential use of war powers to those
necessary for an immediate defense of the United States or those
exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war. In this
case of Pakistan, the president has neither. And international law
prohibits entering a sovereign country without its consent. But Brennan
argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which
Congress enacted in 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11 to enable President
Bush to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11, is essentially carte blanche
for any president to kill whomever he wants, and that the use of drones,
rather than the military or rather than arresting those the government
believes have conspired to harm us, is a "surgical" technique that
safeguards the innocent.

Attorney
General Eric Holder made a similar unconstitutional argument a few
months ago when he stated in defense of the president's using drones to
kill Americans in Yemen that the AUMF, plus the careful
consideration that the White House gives to the dimensions of each
killing and the culpability of each person killed, somehow satisfied the
Constitution's requirements for due process.

What
monstrous nonsense all this is. These killings 10,000 miles from here
hardly constitute self-defense and are not in pursuit of a declaration
of war. So, what has Congress done about this? Nothing. And what have
the courts done about this? Nothing.

Prior
to the president's ordering the killing of the New Mexico-born and
unindicted and uncharged Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Awlaki's American father
sued the president in federal district court and asked a judge to
prevent the president from murdering his son in Yemen. After the judge
dismissed the case, a CIA-fired drone killed al-Awlaki and his American
companion and his 16-year-old American son.

In
his three-plus years in office, Obama has launched 254 drones toward
persons in Pakistan, and they collectively have killed 1,277 persons
there. The New America Foundation, a Washington think tank that monitors
the presidential use of drones in Pakistan, estimates that between 11
and 17 percent of the drone victims are innocent Pakistani civilians. So
much for Brennan's surgical strikes. So much for Holder's due process.

The
president is waging a private war against private persons -- even
Americans -- whose deaths he obviously believes will keep America safe.
But he is doing so without congressional authorization, in violation of
the Constitution, and in a manner that jeopardizes our freedom.

Who
will keep us safe from a president who wants to use drones here? How
long will it be before local American governments -- 313 of which
already possess drones -- use them to kill here because they are
surgical and a substitute for due process? Can you imagine the outcry if
Cuba or China launched drones at their dissidents in Florida or
California and used Obama's behavior in Pakistan as a justification?

How long will it be before even the semblance of our Constitution is gone?

I have
been writing about vote fraud since 1993. Few Americans became interested
in the cold reality that since the mid-1960s our elections have been rigged
until the 2000 presidential election and the farce known as 'hanging chads'.
As regular readers of my columns know I belong to no party; I left the
Republican Party in 1996 over vote fraud and the putrid world of dirty
politics where the truth didn't matter. It still doesn't to party hacks
whose only goal is to climb the political ladder of power.

The
Florida recount energized Democrats; the howling was heard from coast
to coast. Laughable when you consider the Democratic Party machine is
more famous for vote fraud than Republicans. Both sides engage in it and
that's a fact.

The
2004 presidential "election" was another farce. An illusion
to keep the herds believing their vote actually counted. It only counts
when those who count the ballots put it in the desired win column. In
2008, Richard Hayes Phillips book, Witness
To A Crime: A Citizens' Audit of an American Election, was published.
That book is an absolute condemnation of vote fraud in the State of Ohio.
Phillips, who I interviewed when I had my radio show, examined 126,00
ballots, 127 poll books and 141 voter signature books from 18 counties:
"Thousands of ballots in heavily Democratic precincts were pre-punched
for third-party candidates. Voting machines were rigged, tabulators were
rigged, ballot boxes were stuffed, ballots were altered, ballots were
sorted according to candidate, and ballots were destroyed."

Friday, May 4, 2012

&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Your browser does not support iframes.&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;

In
his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over
both the American people and the former co-branches of government,
Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor
or face severe consequences.

Posted by BH

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER

BY: Sher
Zieve

Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama
Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court
threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare
will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor
of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either
destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly. The Obama
syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to
doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and
submit to him.

As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly
treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional
unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders. The first E.O., issued 1
May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as
opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution. Also, with
this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by
International committees–thus, replacing the FDA with any international
group which may be chosen. In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US
Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”

The second E.O. issued in 2 days was signed by Obama on 2 May 2012.
This E.O. instructs the USA to bow to international regulations instead
of the US Constitution and Businessweek reports: “Obama’s order
provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote
international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global
regulatory official said today.

“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators
by directing them to take the international implications of their work
into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice
president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation,
said in an e-mailed statement.” This also brings the USA closer to
becoming a “North American Union” and–also–eliminating its
sovereignty–in toto.

Suffice it to say, no one in Congress has issued even the proverbial
“peep” over either of these illegal “orders.” Do the American people
really want to continue to live under this blatant tyranny?

The second question is “Will the Supreme Court of the United States
of America bow to Obama and give up its co-equal status to the dictator
as the US Congress has already done?” If so, perhaps its time for
We-the-People to recruit the Honduran Supreme Court who, along with
their military, ousted its then President Manuel Zelaya who had become a
dictator. Oppression under the Obama syndicate becomes worse each and
every day, folks. Will we ever choose to go back to the sunshine?

“And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and
they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is
able to make war with him?”- Revelation 13:4

Sher
Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are
widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also
writes hard news.

Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times,
Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple
university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio
shows.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

BNI
has posted these stories in the past, but here is a good summary of
Christie's repugnant, over- the-top support for Muslims with terrorist
ties and whose loyalties are to Islam, not America, as well as his
disparagement of those who oppose the recognition of sharia law by US
Courts.

Daniel Pipes (H/T Frederic F) A Quinnipiac poll in
April showed Chris Christie the most popular potential Republican
vice-presidential candidate, thanks to his budget cuts and standing up
to government employee unions. But the governor of New Jersey has a
problem, specifically an Islam problem, in the way of his possible
ascent to higher office. We regret to report that, time and again, he has sided with Islamist forces against those safeguarding American security and civilization.

Some examples:

2008: When serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Christie embraced and kissed Mohammed Qatanani, imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, and praised him as "a man of great goodwill."

He did this after Qatanani had publicly ranted against
Jews and in support of funding Hamas, a U.S. government–designated
terror organization, and on the eve of his deportation hearing for
hiding an Israeli conviction for membership in Hamas. In addition,
Christie designated a top aide, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna,
to testify as a character witness for Qatanani

2010: After Derek Fenton burned
three pages of a Koran at a 9/11 memorial ceremony, his employer, New
Jersey Transit, got Christie's approval to fire him.

Christie vocally endorsed Fenton's
termination, even though this meant protecting Islam at the expense of
Fenton's constitutional right to free speech, declaring, "I don't have
any problem with him being fired." The American Civil Liberties Union
successfully represented Fenton to get his job back.

2010: Christie voted 'present' on the issue of opposition to the Ground Zero Victory mosque

“My
principles on this are two-fold. One, that we have to acknowledge,
respect and give some measure of deference to the feelings of the family
members who lost there loved ones there that day. But it would be wrong
to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical
Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are
Americans. But beyond that…I am not going to get into it..."

Monday, April 30, 2012

About the Course

Have
you ever asked yourself why, despite more than ten years of efforts
–involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, well-over a trillion dollars spent, countless
man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts
to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved
Muslim activists – are we no closer to victory in the so-called “war on
terror” than we were on 9/11?Thankfully, we have been able to kill some dangerous bad guys.
The sad truth of the matter is that, by almost any other measure, the
prospect of victory is becoming more remote by the day. And no one seems
able to explain the reason.In an effort to provide the missing answer, on April 24, the
Center for Security Policy is making available via the Internet a new,
free ten-part video course called “The Muslim Brotherhood in America:
The Enemy Within.” This course connects the proverbial dots, drawing on a
wealth of publicly available data and first-hand accounts to present a
picture that has, for over a decade, been obscured, denied and
suppressed:America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad
another, even more toxic danger – a stealthy and pre-violent form of
warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic
government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover
behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

Part 1: The Threat Doctrine of Shariah & the Muslim Brotherhood

The first section of this briefing explains what shariah is according
to the authorities and institutions of Islam and as promoted most
aggressively by an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Key Points of Part 1

Shariah is a totalitarian, brutally repressive and supremacist doctrine.

Shariah is principally about power, not faith.
Accordingly, adherence towards the political end of overthrowing the
U.S. government is seditious and must be prosecuted, not protected religious practice.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover worldwide behind the
effort to impose shariah everywhere, through stealthy means until such
time as violence can be used to achieve the creation of a global
caliphate to rule in accordance with shariah.

The Brotherhood is not a non-violent group. Rather, in most countries where it operates including the United States, it is in a pre-violent phase.

Discussion Topics for Part 1

Some Muslims believe that it is God’s will that they live under
shariah and compel everybody else to do so. If they argue that such
beliefs are part of their religious practice, should they have the right
under the U.S. Constitution to act on them?

Do you think shariah is consistent with the Constitution? If not,
does it matter that some people would like to bring it here as long as
they are not very numerous or successful?

If Muslim men wish to treat women in ways that reflect their
inferiority with respect to their marital, property and other rights,
should that be okay in the United States?

Can the United States safely “do business with” the Muslim Brotherhood?

Should the United States help the Muslim Brotherhood come to power or consolidate it in the Middle East? How about elsewhere?

Would you like to live under shariah law? What difference do you think it would make in your life?

Do you think we should take seriously those who say they seek to impose shariah worldwide?

Or would we be better served by trying to deny them the attention they seem to crave?

Part 2: The Brotherhood’s ‘Civilization Jihad’ in America

~~~

The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for realizing its mission of
“destroying Western civilization from within” was described in an
undated 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document entitled “Phases of the World
Underground Movement Plan.” In this part, we investigate what they’re
doing to implement it.

Key Points in Part 2

According to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan, the group’s
mission in America is a “civilization-jihadist process…a kind of grand
jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” by
our handsand the hands of the believers “so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

A list of 29 Muslim-American groups was attached to that plan
identifying them as “our organizations and organizations of our
friends.” Even today, 21 years later, most of the preeminent
Muslim-American advocacy and public policy entities are on that list.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad is being pursued through
stealthy means involving the penetration and subversion of this
country’s civil society and governing institutions.

A central feature of the stealthy, pre-violent jihad is what the
military calls “information dominance” – it helps the Muslim Brotherhood
keep us ignorant of the true nature of the threat they pose and the
progress they are making in bringing shariah to America.

Discussion Topics

Where does the term “civilization jihad” come from, and what is meant by it?

What evidence is there that the Muslim Brotherhood is associated
with many prominent Muslim-American organizations – and what
significance do you give to such associations?

Were you surprised to learn of the nature and advanced state of the Brotherhood’s stealthy jihadist techniques?

What is the significance of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation?

Characterize the nature and implications of the guidelines
established by the Society of Professional Journalists in October 2011.

What is Shariah-Compliance Finance and what does its presence in our
capital markets and government holdings imply for the civilization
jihad’s objective of destroying us from within by our own hand?

~~~

With this grounding in the nature of shariah, the goals and
activities of the Muslim Brotherhood to impose it worldwide and an
introduction to the latter’s civilization jihad against the United
States, let’s take a closer look at one of the Ikhwan’s most successful
influence operations: its penetration and manipulation of the Republican
Party and the conservative movement in America.

Key Points in Part 3

Starting with the Clinton Administration, a top Muslim Brotherhood
operative – Abdurahman Alamoudi – succeeded in penetrating the top
reaches of the U.S. government. He was, among other things, given the
responsibility for recruiting, training and credentialing chaplains for
the U.S. military and prison system.

In 1998, Alamoudi launched what amounted to a Muslim Brotherhood
front organization, the Islamic Free Market Institute, for the purpose
of achieving comparable access to and influence with the Republicans and
conservatives.

He was enabled in this by the front organization’s founding chairman: anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.

The opportunity thus afforded to these influence operators had a
pronounced and deleterious impact on the U.S. government’s
characterization of and policies and strategies towards the so-called
“War on Terror.”

Discussion Topics

Should we be concerned that chaplains in the U.S. military and
prison system have been recruited, trained and credentialed, initially
by Abdurahman Alamoudi and subsequently by the Islamic Society of North
America (ISNA), its subsidiaries and operatives? If so, why?

Why do you think Grover Norquist became involved with Alamoudi in launching the Islamic Free Market Institute?

If four federal judges have found that there were grounds to list
the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and ISNA as unindicted
co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas money-laundering
trial, should the U.S. government still be using them as interlocutors
with the Muslim community?

Do you think the access afforded individuals with ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood had an impact on Bush administration characterization of
and policy with respect to the war unleashed on 9/11?

Should anybody be held accountable for affording two individuals
subsequently convicted of terrorism-related crimes – Alamoudi and Sami
al-Arian – access to Candidate George W. Bush and, subsequently, to his
administration?

Should the United States be able to use so-called “secret evidence”
to deport illegal aliens while safeguarding classified information and
the sources and methods by which it is obtained?

Part 4: Suhail Khan, A Case Study in Influence Operations

~~~

If we are to understand the full nature of the threat posed by the
likes of Suhail Khan, we need to examine the Khan case study in closer
detail. We’ll explore both Khan’s extensive ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood and those he has cultivated in his own right for decades,
including what he’s said in public about those ties. Then, we’ll take
stock of the real service he has performed for the Islamist cause, both
in the past and ongoing.

Key Points in Part 4

Suhail Khan was one of the Muslim political activists with
longstanding personal and professional ties to the Brotherhood who
gained access to the Bush 2000 campaign and served in the George W. Bush
administration, thanks to the patronage of Grover Norquist.

In his capacity as the de facto Muslim gatekeeper in the Office of
Public Liaison under senior Bush advisor Karl Rove and then as an
assistant in the personal office of the Secretary of Transportation,
Khan had, at a minimum, an opportunity to facilitate the penetration of
other Islamists.

Both during his time in government service and subsequently, Khan
has been deeply engaged in agendas championed by the Muslim Brotherhood
and its friends.

He has been caught repeatedly engaging in taqiyya – lying for the faith.

The fact that Suhail Khan received a security clearance during his
time in government is an indictment of the clearance process, not
evidence that his background is problem-free.

Discussion Topics

Suhail Khan has deep family and personal ties to some of the most
important Muslim-American organizations in America. Do you find
persuasive his denials that those groups are associated with the Muslim
Brotherhood or that it is even present in the United States?

Should we be concerned that Suhail Khan in a 1999 address to a
Muslim Brotherhood audience extolled Muslims’ “love of death more than
our oppressors love life” and his declaration that he had “dedicated his
life to the ummah”?

If Suhail Khan is, in fact, a Muslim Brotherhood operative, should
we be concerned that he worked in the Bush White House and
Transportation Department?

If Suhail Khan received a security clearance, shouldn’t that allay any concerns about his service in such roles?

Describe the difference between being a Muslim activist and being a
Muslim political activist, and how does Suhail Khan fulfill these
qualifications?

If Suhail Khan is, indeed, a Muslim Brotherhood operative, should it
be of concern that he is a lobbyist in Washington for a major American
company, Microsoft?

Should the United States remove “impediments to zakat,” as Suhail
Khan wants, if the practical effect would be to remove legal barriers
currently in place to material support for terror?

Isn’t “interfaith dialogue” of the kind promoted by Suhail Khan with
his trip for government officials and prominent Muslim figures to
Auschwitz a good thing?

Part 5: The Organizations Islamists Are Using to Subvert the Right

~~~

The next part of this briefing offers some illustrative examples of
the myriad ways in which Norquist and his team are still very actively
and purposefully promoting the Islamist agenda — with considerable, and
toxic, effect.

Key Points in Part 5

With the sponsorship and assistance of Grover Norquist, a variety of organizations ostensibly on the Right have been – and are continuing to be – put at the service of Islamists. These include:

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)

Islamic Free Market Institute (II)

The ‘Center-Right’ Coalition (the ‘Wednesday Meeting’)

The Conservative Inclusion Coalition

The Center-Right Coalition “franchises” and sponsored meetings around the country

The American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA)

Norquist has lent his conservative political credentials to
Red-Green coalitions made up of radical and other leftists and Muslim
Brotherhood front groups with whom they routinely make common cause to
the detriment of U.S. security, constitutional freedoms and other
interests.

Norquist has even worked on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran
through one such Leftist-Islamist group, the Coalition for a New
American Policy for Iran, founded in his offices.

Discussion Topics

What is your reaction to Paul Weyrich’s statement that “It’s very
possible some of the Muslims want to establish a fifth column in this
country”?

What do you think of the idea that the U.S. Constitution as the
“supreme law of the land” is outdated and that we should allow foreign
laws – including, but not limited to, shariah – to be used to adjudicate
disputes in our courts? Should that be the case even in circumstances
where doing so would deny American citizens constitutional rights?

Should we be concerned that Grover Norquist continues to build
infrastructure and utilize it to advance agendas that are favored by the
Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists?

Does it serve American interests to decline to aid opposition
elements in Iran, to resist sanctions on the regime and foreclose the
option of military action to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon?

Are you concerned about coalitions involving radical leftists and
Islamists? What do you make of a prominent conservative consorting
with, in some cases founding and otherwise promoting their agendas?

Part 6: Electing Islamist Republicans

~~~

In this part, we consider how several individuals with ties to the
Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamists have been groomed to run for
office as Republicans. The careers of Grover Norqust proteges Kamal
Nawash, Faisal Gill, and Imad ‘David’ Ramadan are given close scrutiny.

Key Points in Part 6

Grover Norquist has helped a number of Muslim-American organizations
and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood adopt the
coloration of conservatives and Republicans.

At one point, one of the founders of a group styling itself Muslims
for America described how Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform was
“looking for Muslim leaders, state-by-state, to participate within their
monthly meetings, which also serve as political hotbeds for creating relations with top political leaders and Muslims.”

The Course examines the backgrounds and records to date of three such Islamists. Two of them, Kamal Nawash and Faisal Gill,
failed to achieve electoral success, due in part to untimely
revelations of their ties to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. A
third Norquist-backed Muslim candidate, Imad “David” Ramadan, however, was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in November 2011 by a 50-vote margin.

The key to Ramadan’s success seems to have been not only Norquist’s
mentoring and networking but extensive and generous campaign donations
he made with funds generated offshore but of unknown provenance to GOP
politicians and organizations, a number of whom dutifully endorsed the
candidate – ignoring or dismissing evidence of his problematic past and
Islamist ties.

Discussion Topics

Is it fair, let alone prudent, to judge people by the company they
keep? At what point should a line be drawn on “guilt by association”?

Specifically, should people with associated with the Muslim
Brotherhood, shariah and/or Islamist agendas be encouraged to run for
public office in the United States?

Should Republican leaders be concerned that they expose themselves
to political liabilities if they endorse candidates that have such
associations?

Is it “racist,” “bigoted” or “Islamophobic” to probe a Muslim
candidate’s history of family ties to Lebanese intelligence, the sources
of his personal wealth or the extensive uses of such wealth to secure
access to and endorsements from prominent political figures?

Do you agree with former Department of Homeland Security Inspector
General Clark Ervin who asked, “Should anyone even remotely connected to
terrorism be employed by Homeland Security in any capacity, especially
the ultrasensitive area of intelligence and infrastructure protection?”

Part 7: Advancing the Islamists’ Agendas

~~~

Building infrastructure and running candidates helps with the third
part of Grover Norquist’s ongoing Islamist influence operation:
advancing the agendas of the civilization jihadists or, at a minimum,
promoting agendas that serve the Islamists’ interests. In this part, we
take a look at some of those initiatives, including opposition a host of
policies that keep America safe.

Key Points in Part 7

Before, during and after the Bush ’43 administration, Grover
Norquist has been associated with and often played a leading role in
promoting various agenda items favored by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran
and other Islamists. These have included:

Endorsing political and legislative initiatives

Attacking critics of shariah

Opposing ‘American Laws for American Courts’

Helping the Iranian regime

Making common cause with the ‘Red-Green axis’

Using his anti-tax campaigner’s access to open doors for the Muslim Brotherhood

Burrowing into various targeted institutions and communities through friendships and alliances

Credentialing Islamist operatives as members and, if possible, as leaders of such institutions and communities

Using such leadership platforms and positions of influence “inside the wire” to fracture and isolate the targeted community

Discussion Topics

Should law enforcement agencies be able to use for the purpose of
preventing terrorism the sorts of surveillance and investigative tools
authorized for counter-drug and other efforts to counter illegal
activity? As this is the principal purpose – and involves the most
controversial elements – of the Patriot Act, do you support it?

Should shariah-adherent Muslims be allowed to build a mosque and “cultural center” adjacent to Ground Zero?

Is it advisable, under present and foreseeable circumstances, to
reduce dramatically the size and capabilities of the U.S. military or to
leave America’s borders insecure?

Should the United States distance itself from Israel and pursue engagement with the Iranian regime?

Knowing what you do about the policies promoted by Grover Norquist –
opposition to the Patriot Act, favoring the Ground Zero mosque, sharply
reducing the defense budget, hostility towards Israel and promoting the
Iranian regime’s party line – are you concerned that he is, according
to “60 Minutes,” “the most powerful conservative man in Washington”?

Do you find persuasive the evidence provided that Grover Norquist
has been and is now running a classic influence operation against the
Republican Party, conservative movement and U.S. government?

Part 8: Team Obama & the Islamists

The Obama administration has greatly exacerbated the penetration of
the U.S. government achieved during the George W. Bush administration.
This part of the course will concentrate on illustrative examples of
Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals who have been allowed access
to – and, in some cases, given positions In the Obama administration.
This part is a case study of Rashad Hussain, Huma Abedin, Daliah
Mogahed, Kifa Mustapha, Momamed Elibiary, and Mohamed Magid. As we will
see, taken together, such people and policy initiatives have advanced
considerably the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad against the
United States, here at home and overseas.

Key Findings in Part 8

The precedents, personnel and policies promoted during the George W.
Bush administration have metastasized dramatically under his successor.

Some individuals with close personal and professional ties to the
Muslim Brotherhood have been appointed to senior and influential
positions in the Obama administration. Others have been given access in
more informal advisory roles.

Six of this Islamist cohort are profiled in the course: Special
Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Rashad Hussein; Deputy
Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Huma Abedein;
Presidential advisor Dalia Mogahed; FBI Citizen’s Academy graduate Kifah
Mustafa; Homeland Security Advisory Committee Member Mohamed Elibiary
and Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member
Mohamed Magid.

Such individuals have clearly had an impact on U.S. policy under
President Obama in ways that advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s
civilization jihad and the efforts of other Islamists to compel our
submission to shariah.

Discussion Topics

What is a hafiz of the Quran and what are the implications of one serving in a senior position in the U.S. government?

Should the fact that an individual has family members in prominent
positions with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organization preclude them
from serving in the U.S. government?

Can shariah-adherent Muslims honestly swear to “uphold and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic”? Is it realistic to expect them to fulfill that oath?

What are the implications of the President of the United States
taking advice from a woman who believes “The majority of women around
the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia
compliance”?

Should individuals identified as unindicted co-conspirators in
terrorism financing be precluded from participating in such community
outreach initiatives as the FBI’s “citizen academies”?

Should a Muslim member of the Department of Homeland Security’s
Advisory Committee who has been given a security clearance be held to
the same standards for safeguarding classified information as others
with such access?

Should membership in and leadership of the largest Muslim
Brotherhood front in the United States – the Islamic Society of North
America – disqualify someone from serving in official or advisory
capacities in the federal or any state government?

Part 9: Team Obama & the Islamist Agenda

~~~

In the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, Democratic
candidate Barack Obama declared that he was poised to begin
“fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He has
certainly done so with respect to policies favored by Islamists. This
part is a two-hour deep drill-down into the disastrous policies of the
Obama White House, its State Department, Defense Department, Justice
Department, Department of Homeland Security, and more.

Key Findings in Part 9

The conduct of seven key federal agencies suggests the considerable
success of the Muslim Brotherhood in destroying us from within by our
own hands – starting with the policies and directives emanating from the
Oval Office and elsewhere in the White House complex.

Examples of such evidence include:

White House: Promulgating a self-defeating
“National Strategy for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent
Extremism in the United States” that effectively guarantees Muslim
Brotherhood fronts a say, if not a veto, on policy and its implementation

Director of National Intelligence: Characterizing
the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular group” that has “eschewed
violence” and has “no overarching agenda, at least internationally”

State Department: Granting unconditional and in one lump-sum payment $1.5 billion to the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government in Egypt

Homeland Security: Allowing deep penetration by
Muslim Brotherhood operatives to translate into lexicons, strategies and
guidelines that are seriously defective and doomed to fail

NASA: Implementing presidential guidance that
established the Administrator’s “foremost” priority as “making Muslim
nations feel good about their historic contribution to science…and math
and engineering.”

Discussion Topics

What do you think Candidate Barack Obama meant when he declared he
would “fundamentally transform the United States of America” during his
presidency?

Why is the term “countering violent extremism” being used? Are there more accurate ways to describe the threat we face?

Do you think the characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood given
Congress by the Director of National Intelligence in February 2011 –
namely, that it is a “largely secular” organization, that has “eschewed
violence” and “repudiated al Qaeda” and has “no overarching agenda, at
least internationally” – is shaping U.S. policy toward that
organization, here and abroad?

What is the “Istanbul Process” and what do you make of it? Is it a threat to our First Amendment freedoms?

Should federal agencies be giving Muslim “community leaders” veto
power or even key advisory roles in the selection of trainers and the
content of training materials for “countering violent extremism”?

Is the Defense Department’s counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy – at
least as it is currently being implemented in Afghanistan – susceptible
to misperception by the enemy as submissive? If so, what are the
implications of such a perception taking hold there?

Should the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent
Extremism Working Group include any, let alone a significant number, of
shariah-adherent Muslims or other Islamist-sympathizers?

Do you believe NASA administrator’s “foremost” responsibility should
be to “engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them
feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and
engineering”? Why do you think the President would say it is?

Part 10: What’s to be Done?

~~~

How to defeat the most serious and imminent of such dangers in our
time: the Islamist doctrine of shariah and the efforts of its adherents
to impose it world-wide, on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, through
violent means or by stealth.

Key Findings in Part 10

Every effort must be made to defeat the most serious and imminent of
ideological danger in our time: the Islamist doctrine of shariah and
the efforts of its adherents to impose it worldwide, on Muslims and
non-Muslims alike, through violent means or by stealth.

This can be accomplished through concerted action at three levels:

Individual initiatives

Organized efforts by groups

National action

Illustrative examples of each include:

Individual initiatives: Becoming knowledgeable
about the threat from shariah and the Muslim Brotherhood who seek to
bring it here and trained in how best to counter such a threat

Organized efforts:Supporting
state-level legislation to prevent foreign laws like shariah that
violate constitutional rights from being practiced in the state’s courts

National action: Designating the Muslim
Brotherhood a terrorist organization and terminating all outreach to and
support of this group and its various fronts, both here and abroad.

Discussion Topics

Do you think America should be kept free of seditious shariah?

Are you willing to help?

Have you identified an area of this counter-jihad that you feel particularly strongly about?

Do you have skill sets that would enable you to be especially
effective in one facet or another of the effort to counter shariah in
this country?

Do you know of others who feel the same way or could be helpful?

Are there improvements you would make to this course that would make it more impactful for people like you?

What are your next steps in terms of becoming more knowledgeable, trained and engaged in the War for the Free World?

Sen. James Inhofe is calling for an investigation into a top
Environmental Protection Agency administrator who confessed that his
“philosophy of enforcement” was to “crucify” and “make examples of”
energy companies.

Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz has apologized
for his remarks, but meteorologist and author Brian Sussman points out
that this is only the surface of a much deeper problem with the federal
bureaucracy.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Sussman asked, “Would the EPA
official have apologized for his contemptuous crucifixion declaration if
he had not been caught on tape? Of course not. His statement is a
perfect representation of eco-tyranny.”

In his explosive new book of that title, Sussman
details how what he calls “green authoritarianism” was inevitable from
the beginning. He explains that Richard Nixon, who “wanted to be liked,”
according to one of his well-known former advisers, created the
Environmental Protection Agency as an olive branch to the hard left. As
Sussman jokes, “Needless to say, it was not returned.”

According to Sussman, the EPA and the legislation that empowered it,
notably the Clean Air Act, “[were] flatly unconstitutional.” Article I,
Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the federal government
the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

But Sussman notes that “somehow this turned into the ability for
Congress to regulate the conduct of individual businesses, the output of
specific industrial processes, and the makeup of the atmosphere itself.
And as we’ve seen, they can’t wait to shut down businesses they don’t
like.”

“Eco-Tyranny”
also exposes what Sussman calls the Obama administration’s “war” on oil
and gas production. He notes that the Obama administration imposed a
moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, costing an estimated
137,000 jobs and $400 million to the state of Louisiana.

Furthermore, Obama also suspended exploratory drilling in Alaska, with his Department of Interior stonewalling any applications.

Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar also shut down efforts to harness shale oil in the Mountain West.

See the Armendariz rant: PLEASE NOTICE THAT THE BELOW VIDEO HAS BEEN REMOVED.. WONDER WHY ?

~~~

The result, Sussman charges, “is a deliberate effort to keep our
country dependent on oil imports from the hostile nations of OPEC
(Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). If our president
would simply unleash American industry, OPEC would soil their tunics.”

MORE PICTURES DOWN BELOW

NEXT NEWS NETWORK ON FREE ZONE TV "WFZ" -TV" - "WFZR" - RADIO

CONTACT US BOX - TIP LINE - OR JUST SAY HELLO ?

NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
Please Enable Javascript for this Finance widget to work

ARCIVES OF ALL POST WAY DOWN BELOW..OR CLICK HOME (RECENT POST) YOU CAN SEARCH SUBJECT LEFT TOP.

CHECK DOWN BELOW

NEW-NEW-NEW-WATCHERS TV SERIES ON FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER NEWS

WATCHERS EPISODE 4WATCHERS EPISODE 5
STAY TUNED FOR MORE EPISODE'S

Free Zone Media presents Dan Jablons "Don't Make Me Go to Home Depot"

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME GO TO HOME DEPOT !

MUSIC - VICTOR BAILEY - JAZZ - STORY COMING ABOUT THIS MAN - EDITOR HERE, AND THE PASS,

VICTORY BAILEY JR IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS JAZZ BASSIST IN THE WORLD !
I KNEW HIM WHEN HE WOULD COME TO MY STUDIO WITH HIS FATHER MORRIS BAILEY, PRODUCER OF R&B MUSIC IN THE PHILLY AREA, VICTOR,YOU WOULD SIT OFF TO THE SIDE OR IN THE CORNER AND WATCH - HE WAS LEARNING - BOY, WAS HE LEARNING ! HE NAILED IT! I AM PROUD TO CONSIDER HIM A FRIEND TODAY ! I PRESENT TO YOU: VICTOR BAILEY - HE IS NOW A PROFESSOR OF MUSIC AT THE BERKLEE COLLAGE OF MUSIC IN BOSTON, MASS.

MUSIC AND WORDS

YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT THE FREE ZONE

Merle Haggard Song "I THINK I'LL JUST STAY HERE AND DRINK"

AFTER WATCHING THE NIGHTLY NEWS

CONUNTRY MUSIC: THE BEST OF CONWAY TWITTY

WH NOTE: I WAS RUNNING A THEATER IN BRANSON MISSOURI WHEN CONWAY DIED IN A HOSPITAL IN SPRINGFIELD MISSOURI;

NINA WILEY WRITER - EDITOR

Dr. Bill Smith (The Ozark Guru)

FREE ZONE FEEDJIT

NOTICE:

Comments by contributors or sources do not necessarily reflect the position of FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER, its Officers, memberships or the Editors.

Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.